Archive for 2005
In the New York Times: Dan Solove on Spying
posted by Jason Mazzone
Concurring Opinions readers should check out Adam Liptak’s article in the New York Times today, Little Help From Justices on Spy Program. Dan Solove is among the law professors quoted on the constitutional issued raised by the NSA spying program.
December 23, 2005 at 11:33 am
Posted in: Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
No Comments
The President’s Inherent Authority Argument
posted by Daniel Solove
There are some great posts over at Balkinization examining the President’s inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance.
Here are some key excerpts:
December 22, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Posted in: Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
One Comment
NSA Surveillance Blog Post Roundups: More Posts
posted by Daniel Solove
For those interested in blogospheric opinion about the NSA surveillance issue, I’ve been updating NSA Surveillance: Blog Post Roundup II with new posts I find to be of interest.
December 21, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Posted in: Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
2 Comments
Judge Posner’s Troubling Call for Massive Surveillance
posted by Daniel Solove
Judge Richard Posner has written an op-ed in the Washington Post today where he calls for a massive program of surveillance of U.S. citizens — their email, documents, phone conversations, nearly everything they say or do — regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing or not. Posner’s argument is quite startling and troublesome. Posner writes:
The collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value. This initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer.
In other words, Posner is saying that so long as the data is gathered by computers, there’s no privacy invasion if the government collects everything. It is also odd for Posner to say this, because in Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2004), he held that even records without identifying information could constitute an invasion of privacy: “Even if there were no possibility that a patient’s identity might be learned from a redacted medical record, there would be an invasion of privacy.” Posner’s conclusion that records that are anonymized could still violate people’s privacy is a radical one, and I find it hard to square with what he says in the op-ed.
So, taking Posner’s argument to the extreme, there’s no problem if the government were to wiretap, install video cameras in our homes, collect every document we ever wrote, and so on — so long as the information were collected by computers and not seen by human eyes. But what about the vast power this gives the government? What about the potential for government abuse? What about the chilling effects on people’s speech and freedom? Posner ignores these things.
Posner goes on to write:
December 21, 2005 at 11:12 am
Posted in: Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
12 Comments
Hypothetical: What If President Bush Were Correct About His Surveillance Powers?
posted by Daniel Solove
There’s been some terrific analysis in the blogosphere about whether President Bush is correct that he had the power to authorize warrantless surveillance. (See here and here for a roundup of posts.) The arguments thus far focus on what the President has already done, but the President has stated that he will continue the warrantless surveillance “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.”
Suppose the President is right that he has the power to do this based on his “inherent authority” as Commander-in-Chief. The implications are quite alarming. It means that the President, in his sole discretion, can secretly authorize the NSA to engage in electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens until the War on Terrorism is over. This is a war without a foreseeable end. Under his argument, there seems to be no reason why he can’t authorize other agencies to engage in surveillance, such as the FBI and CIA. And why does it need to be limited just to wiretaps? Perhaps video surveillance, bugs, searches of homes, gathering documents, and more.
Under his argument, Bush could continue to ignore the requirements of any law that stands in his way. What could Congress do? Congress could try to enact a law to clarify that it wants the President to abide by existing laws. Of course, the President could veto that law, but suppose Congress overrode the veto. According to the President’s logic, he could still say that his “inherent authority” allows him to ignore it.
The problem with Bush’s argument is that he has articulated virtually no conceivable limits to his power. The stakes of the debate aren’t just about what the President has already done. They are about what the President has defiantly declared he has the power to do in the future.
December 21, 2005 at 3:09 am
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
14 Comments
Federal Judge Resigns from the FISA Court
posted by Daniel Solove
The Washington Post reports:
U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.
Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court’s work.
December 21, 2005 at 2:58 am
Posted in: Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
One Comment
NSA Surveillance: Blog Post Roundup II
posted by Daniel Solove
In addition to the blog post roundup I did yesterday, here are more blog posts about Bush’s NSA surveillance worth reading:
David Cole, Bush’s Illegal Spying (Salon, Dec. 20, 2005)
“Attorney General Gonzales contends that the authorization by Congress to use military force somehow implicitly gave the president power to wiretap Americans at home. But nothing in the authorization even mentions wiretaps. And that claim is directly contrary to the express language in FISA limiting any such authority. While intercepting the enemy’s communications on the battlefield may well be an incident of the war power, wiretapping hundreds of people inside the United States who are not known to be members of al-Qaida in no way qualifies as an incidental wartime authority.”
Marty Lederman, Another Reason Why the AUMF Argument is Wrong, and Why This Surveillance Program is Lawless (Dec. 20, 2005)
“1. Because it’s not necessary that even one of the parties to the communication have been part of Al Qaeda, it explains why a FISA court would not have granted authority for these intercepts in the first place — which is why the Administration could not work within the existing (very deferential, pro-government) authorities.
2. Obviously, the NSA protocol is simply not covered by the terms of the AUMF itself, because it reaches conduct by NSA against communications of persons who are not “those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
3. It’s also presumably not a “fundamental incident of war” for the Executive to wiretap a communication between two persons, neither of whom is suspected of being part of (or an agent of) the enemy (let alone the military arm of the enemy). This is not only another reason that the AUMF (and Hamdi) does not authorize these interceptions; it also means that not even the boldest assertion of Commander-in-Chief authority would support this program.”
December 20, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Posted in: Criminal Procedure, Privacy, Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
2 Comments
Wikipedia Irony: Jimmy Wales Edits His Own Entry
posted by Daniel Solove
A story in Wired reveals that Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has been editing his own Wikipedia entry:
Public edit logs reveal that Wales has changed his own Wikipedia bio 18 times, deleting phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of the site.
The changes were reported Monday by technology writer Rogers Cadenhead on his blog, Workbench, spurring Sanger to launch a dialogue on Wikipedia about revisionist history.
In an interview with Wired News, Wales acknowledged he’s made changes to his bio, but said the edits were made to correct factual errors and provide a more rounded version of events.
While he said that Wikipedia generally frowns on people editing entries about themselves, there is no hard and fast rule against it.
“People shouldn’t do it, including me,” he said. “I wish I hadn’t done it. It’s in poor taste…. People have a lot of information about themselves but staying objective is difficult. That’s the trade-off in editing entries about yourself…. If you see a blatant error or misconception about yourself, you really want to set it straight.”
According to technology writer Cadenhead, who ferreted out the record of changes, Wales has altered sentences that gave Larry Sanger credit for co-founding Wikipedia seven times.
Recently, Adam Curry got shamed across the blogosphere for editing part of an entry pertaining to himself.
Should people be editing or creating entries for themselves in Wikipedia?
On the one hand, people’s self-interest might prevent them from editing objectively. People also might use Wikipedia as a kind of vanity press of sorts, creating entries about themselves filled with praise. I’m actually surprised that there isn’t more of this going on, as it can be quite flattering to have an entry for oneself or one’s organization in Wikipedia.
One the other hand, who knows better about Jimmy Wales than Jimmy Wales? If the people actually involved in various entries are shamed into not being able to edit them, we lose a valuable source of information.
Related Posts:
1. Wiki Thyself
2. Other posts about Wikipedia are collected in the Wiki Category Archive
December 20, 2005 at 11:06 am
Posted in: Wiki
Print This Post
6 Comments
What Else?
posted by Jason Mazzone
Congress is gearing up to investigate the NSA domestic surveillance program. That’s better than Congress doing nothing—but it doesn’t give much reason to cheer. The NSA program is only one of a recent series of disturbing revelations about the Administration and the war on terror: detention of suspects with little or no process; secret prisons in Europe; people being hooded, stuffed in planes, and delivered to foreign governments; and, quite possibly, the use of torture.
If Congress is serious about checking Presidential powers, it needs to look far beyond what it already knows has taken place.
Rather than simply get to the bottom of domestic surveillance, Congress needs to get a better handle on what else the Administration is doing and plans to do in this war.
At this point, very little seems unimaginable. Are there, for instance, American citizens held secretly in this country or abroad? What kinds of interrogation techniques have American officials practiced and what are they trained to do? What plans are currently in place to get information from a captured suspect in the event of a ticking bomb? Are other agencies involved in spying without warrants? Have people been removed from the United States without a hearing? Under what circumstances are detainees denied counsel? Has the government asked anybody to give up U.S. citizenship in exchange for dismissing criminal charges?
Have family members of a suspect been taken into custody to exert pressure on the suspect? Has there been spying on leaders of political organizations or members of government? Who will be rounded up in the event of another attack? Is there a plan for martial law?
Congress has the resources to explore these kinds of issues. Congress might of course—and, to a large extent, it probably should—conduct its investigation without revealing what it finds to the general public.
But the bottom line is this: when all is said and done, history must show that whatever happened in the war on terror, Congress knew about it and gave approval.
December 19, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Posted in: Politics
Print This Post
One Comment
NSA Surveillance: Blog Post Roundup
posted by Daniel Solove
There is a lot of great analysis and opinion in the blogosphere regarding Bush’s authorization of warrantless NSA surveillance. Here are some useful links:
News Articles
James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts (N.Y. Times, Dec. 16, 2005) (original article to break the story)
Scott Shane, Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives (N.Y. Times, Dec. 17, 2005)
Peter Baker, President Acknowledges Approving Secretive Eavesdropping (Wash. Post, Dec. 18, 2005)
AP, Bush Says U.S. Spy Program Is Essential and Legal (AP, Dec. 19, 2005)
Statutes, Cases, and Other Materials
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (1978)
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Sept. 14, 2001)
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence (Dec. 19, 2005)
United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (aka the Keith case) (Fourth Amendment analysis of national security surveillance)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 981 (2004) (analysis of the scope of authority granted by Congress’s Authorization to Use Military Force)
Blog Posts (in no particular order and by no means comprehensive)
Orin Kerr, Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program (Dec. 19, 2005)
“My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don’t know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”
(This is the most lengthy and detailed analysis to date.)
Orin Kerr, Domestic Surveillance by the NSA? (Dec. 15, 2005)
“While the statutory privacy laws have an exception for this type of monitoring, see 18 U.S.C. 2511(f), and the constitutional limits on e-mail surveillance are uncertain even in traditional criminal cases, the constitutionality of warrantless interception of telephone calls in situations like this is really murky stuff.”
December 19, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Posted in: Criminal Procedure, Privacy, Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
7 Comments
Beyond His Power: Bush’s Authorization of Warrantless NSA Surveillance
posted by Daniel Solove
In this post, I aim to explore more in depth whether Bush had the legal power to authorize warrantless NSA surveillance. As I was putting the finishing touches on this post, I noticed that Orin Kerr beat me to the punch, and I find that we’ve identified the same issues and are in substantial agreement. His post is a lot longer and more detailed than mine (which is quite long itself), so read mine for a broader overview and Orin’s for the treatise-length account.
1. Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment standards are somewhat vague. The Supreme Court declared in United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (often called the Keith case) that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant for the government to engage in electronic surveillance for domestic criminal investigations. However, the Court noted:
. . . [D]omestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of “ordinary crime.” The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. . . . Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government’s preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime. . . . .
Different standards [for gathering domestic security intelligence] may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens. For the warrant application may vary according to the governmental interest to be enforced and the nature of citizen rights deserving protection.
December 19, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Posted in: Criminal Procedure, Privacy, Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
21 Comments
Welcome to the Google-Borg
posted by Greg Lastowka
USAToday.com is running a banner headline today for an article: “Google becoming an auxiliary brain.” Here’s the article, and here’s the thesis of the reporter, Elizabeth Weise:
If we are the sum total of our knowledge and experiences, then the Internet is a collection of other people’s knowledge and experiences. And Google — so ubiquitous that it has become its own verb — allows us to tap into that collection.
I generally enjoyed reading this, and it’s way too easy to nitpick USA Today, but here are a few reactions:
1) It’s a pretty clear example of the cyborg trope isn’t it? Google isn’t billed as just a novel information source, like a television, it’s billed as a “brain” — a technological extension of human biology. And like the brain of the Star Trek Borg, it is a collective mind we now share. This collective brain-sharing is billed not as scary, but nifty.
2) Despite the excerpt above, if you read this, Google appears to be getting a great deal of credit for the Web itself. Throughout, Weise’s language makes this an article about Google as information repository, not as search provider. To be clear: Larry, Serge, and company built a great search tool that helps you find information that other people put on the Web (and one that hands you an advertisement along the way).
3) In somewhat of a contradiction, it appears that people who provide information on the Web are not to be trusted. Weise quotes a research librarian from Georgia:
And even when malicious intent isn’t the problem, mastery of a subject can be, says Jacobson. “The opinions that get heard are from people who have a lot of time to create websites, not necessarily the people with the best information.”
Can’t trust those people who have time to create websites, can you? Oh wait — isn’t that the definition of my Googlebrain? What is curious is that the answer seems to be no, because this comment doesn’t follow the discussion of Google, but… Wikipedia. So Wikipedia is less trustworthy than the Web (aka “Google”)? Oh well.
Further reading: Danah Boyd on the Seigenthaler fuss.
December 19, 2005 at 10:44 am
Posted in: Google & Search Engines, Wiki
Print This Post
One Comment
Should Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Help China Filter Searches?
posted by Daniel Solove
An interesting article from Salon discusses how Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft assist the Chinese government with censorship. The companies filter out search results that the government wants to censor, and they help the government track down individuals engaging in criticism and dissent:
To conduct business in China, popular Internet companies Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have had to accommodate a regime that forbids free speech, bars political parties and jails journalists. This means filtering searches on their sites, censoring news and providing evidence in the trials of political dissidents — or risk having their sites blocked in China. Forced to choose between ignoring the world’s hottest market or implicitly endorsing a system of censorship that a recent Harvard study called “the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world,” the companies have decided to cooperate.
“Business is business,” Jack Ma, CEO of Alibaba.com, which controls Yahoo China, told the Financial Times. “It’s not politics.”
How do companies cooperate? The article explains:
December 19, 2005 at 1:54 am
Posted in: Google & Search Engines, Technology
Print This Post
6 Comments
Wikipedia Vandals
posted by Daniel Solove
According to The Times (UK), a group of vandals have been attacking Wikipedia deliberately adding in falsehoods to articles:
[There has been a] surge in the number of spoof articles and vandal attacks which have followed the furore over a biographical Wikipedia article linking John Seigenthaler, a respected retired journalist, with the assassinations of both John F and Robert Kennedy.
In one such fake article, it was suggested today that Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s creator, was shot dead at his home by Siegenthaler’s wife.
This is most unfortunate. That’s the problem when you have something open and free — anybody can abuse the system. In an interesting post, Eric Goldman predicts the demise of Wikipedia:
December 18, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Posted in: Wiki
Print This Post
6 Comments
Freakonomics, The Apprentice, Student Grades, and Privacy
posted by Daniel Solove
The ending of this season’s The Apprentice (with Donald Trump) has everybody talking. Rebecca Jarvis and Randal Pinkett were the finalists, both of whom Trump thought were outstanding stars. He hired Randal and later asked Randal whether he should also hire Rebecca. Randal said “no” because “there can be only one Apprentice” and the show is called “the Apprentice, not the Apprenti [sic].” Ann Althouse has more details and extensive commentary here and here.
The buzz about The Apprentice finale has also reached the Freakonomics blog, one that I greatly enjoy. I was surprised when I read a post by Steven Levitt about Rebecca:
More important, I know a celebrity! Rebecca Jarvis, the runner-up, is my former student at University of Chicago. If I remember correctly, she got an A.
Far stranger than her being my student is that we also went to the same high school in the Twin Cities.
I’ll have to dig out her old exam and get her to autograph it for me.
My surprise was at the fact that he just revealed a student’s grade on the Internet. There is likely no actionable privacy law claim for such a disclosure (perhaps breach of confidentiality), and it would be odd for a student to sue over the disclosure that she got an A in a class and quite difficult to establish damages. Nevertheless, it strikes me as a lapse in judgment to reveal a student’s grade — even a good grade — over the Internet without first obtaining that student’s consent. Perhaps Levitt did obtain Rebecca’s consent, but as I read the post, it doesn’t seem likely he did. While Levitt’s infraction isn’t one I’m too worked up about, it does demonstrate the importance of having some self-restraint in blogging. It’s easy for all of us to dash off a post in haste without thinking of the implications.
Speaking of student grades, I’ve got a pile of exams I should be getting to . . .
December 18, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Posted in: Privacy
Print This Post
9 Comments
SupremeCourtOf TheUnitedStates.blogspot.com?
posted by Jason Mazzone
The New York Times Book Review this week has an article (“What Are They Saying About Me?) about book authors and blogging. In addition to discussing the varying practices of authors in the blogosphere–some authors read obsessively what is said about their books, some don’t bother at all–the article discusses the possibility of blogs improving books before publication.
Cass Sunstein is quoted as saying that pre-publication comments at the Volokh Conspiracy affected the content of his recent book, Radicals in Robes. (Sunstein doesn’t actually say the comments improved his book but presumably that’s what he means.)
That got me thinking. I have previously complained about the poor quality of Supreme Court opinions.
Maybe a blog can help the nine Justices?
Here, then, is a simple proposal: The Supreme Court should operate a blog to generate input on the Court’s opinions before they are published. The postings could range from limited issues (“if we decide in the petitioner’s favor, is it better to remand to the lower courts?”) to entire drafts of opinions and requests for comments.
We’re accustomed to secrecy in decision-making at the Supreme Court. But there is no particular reason that has to be the norm. Improving the Court’s ultimate product is a good reason for lifting the curtain.
Moreover, the Court already gets input from non-parties in the form of amicus briefs. A blog would expand on that principle and allow input from a wider audience. A blog would also allow the Justices to get help when issues arise during the course of preparing an opinion—the point at which they most likely need assistance.
The Justices will need to give some thought to how to structure their blog. An unmoderated Supreme Court blog would attract a lot of comments, many of which would be less insightful and helpful than others. (Look at the reader comments at the Volokh conspiracy for evidence of that problem.) So perhaps comments should be limited to registered users. Perhaps registration should require some kind of screening process. Law professors might qualify more easily than, say, astrologers. Anonymous posts probably should not be allowed.
But with some careful planning, a Supreme Court blog could vastly improve the quality of the Court’s ultimate product.
Indeed, it has already worked for Radicals in Robes.
December 17, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Posted in: Constitutional Law
Print This Post
7 Comments
How Much Government Secrecy Is Really Necessary?
posted by Daniel Solove
Responding to reports that revealed that the President authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance within the US, President Bush said:
“The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.”
I’m growing weary of arguments like this. How, exactly, does the revelation of the fact that Bush authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance — possibly exceeding the limits of his lawful powers — put “our citizens at risk”? Why is every disclosure about the extent of the government’s surveillance somehow assisting the terrorists?
The argument seems to be that we can’t have a national debate about the nature and extent of government surveillance because such information will help the terrorists. But central to any viable democracy is a government that is publicly accountable, and that requires that the people have the information they need to assess their government’s activities.
Recently, I blogged about a story involving a secret DOD database of protesters. And there’s a debate going on about a secret regulation in the Gilmore case. The debate has focused on whether the secret information in the case is really a regulation, a law, or something else, but the larger question remains: Why does it need to be a secret?
December 17, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Posted in: Criminal Procedure, Privacy, Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
6 Comments
Did Bush Have the Legal Authority Under FISA to Authorize NSA Surveillance?
posted by Daniel Solove
Yesterday, I blogged about a startling story in the NY Times about President Bush’s authorizing the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without a warrant or even a court order. According to the NY Times story, the “legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified.”
Today in the NY Times is a follow-up story about the legal basis for the President’s actions. According to the story:
[S]ome legal experts outside the administration, including some who served previously in the intelligence agencies, said the administration had pushed the presidential-powers argument beyond what was legally justified or prudent. They say the N.S.A. domestic eavesdropping illustrates the flaws in Mr. Bush’s assertion of his powers.
“Obviously we have to do things differently because of the terrorist threat,” said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former general counsel of both N.S.A. and the Central Intelligence Agency, who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. “But to do it without the participation of the Congress and the courts is unwise in the extreme.” . . .
William C. Banks, a widely respected authority on national security law at Syracuse University, said the N.S.A. revelation came as a shock, even given the administration’s past assertions of presidential powers.
“I was frankly astonished by the story,” he said. “My head is spinning.”
Professor Banks said the president’s power as commander in chief “is really limited to situations involving military force – anything needed to repel an attack. I don’t think the commander in chief power allows” the warrantless eavesdropping, he said. . . .
In engaging in the surveillance, the President may have ignored the legal procedures set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.
The FISA allows the government to engage in electronic surveillance if it obtains a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which meets in secret. The government must demonstrate probable cause that the monitored party is a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. § 1801. If the monitored party is a U.S. citizen, however, the goverment must establish probable cause that the party’s activities “may” or “are about to” involve a criminal violation. Id.
December 17, 2005 at 2:00 am
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Privacy, Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
17 Comments
Hollywood and “Asians”
posted by Nate Oman
I used to live in South Korea; a fact, I think, that tends to make me a bit touchy about the linguistic, cultural, and — yes — physical differences between various Asian countries. People are fond of talking about things “Asian” without always realizing that there is a huge difference between say Thailand and Korea, or Japan and China. For example, linguistically Chinese has more in common with English than it does with Japanese or Korean. (Setting aside the vocabulary that both languages have borrowed from China.) Needless to say “Asians” also do not constitute a single ethnic group.
Which brings me to Memoirs of a Geisha, just released by Sony pictures. According to all of the reviews, it is a beautifully filmed movie. However, I can’t help but notice that in this very Japanese story all of the lead actresses are Chinese. I don’t think that there is any need to become some sort of fundamentalist about ethnic or national identities, but could you imagine Hollywood producing a movie about a group of Greek women and casting a trio of Norwegian actresses in the lead roles?
December 16, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
21 Comments
What Wikipedia Is (and Isn’t)
posted by Greg Lastowka
In light of the recent discussions here of Wikipedia, I’d like to throw in my two cents on the subject.
I like Wikipedia. In fact, I like it a lot. In fact, I have gone so far as to do what Eugene Volokh warned against — I’ve actually cited to Wikipedia. In fact, I cited to Wikipedia six times in a recently published law review article. (I’m not alone in this by any means–”wikipedia” gets over 200 hits on a Lexis search of law review articles, almost all of which are cites to entries.) In my case, I cited Wikipedia as a starting point for investigating personalities, such as John Mellencamp, Tom Clancy, and Marni Nixon. I’m aware that some of these entries contain certain inaccuracies, but I feel comfortable citing to them for reasons I’ll explain below. In the alternative, I suppose I could have cited to nothing (not very helpful to the reader) or cited to books (realistically, though, how many people would follow up on those cites?). Also, I should admit that, in part, I cite to Wikipedia sometimes because I hope some readers might take a look at Wikipedia and appreciate it for what it is. However, I’m not trying to deceive people about what Wikipedia is–it is, more or less, the Web, repackaged and reformatted.
In fact, before I cited to Wikipedia, I cited, on rare occasions and for very similar reasons, to web searches on Google for a specific term. (Again, I’m not alone in this, though the numbers of people who did this were smaller.) As far as I’m concerned, citing to a Wikipedia entry for Marni Nixon and a Google search for Marni Nixon are very nearly the same thing. Both are invitations to the reader to enter what you might call a “muddy information portal,” a messy and organic field of data that the citing author does not control, but feels would be helpful to the reader as a starting point for further research. Citing to something like that might be unorthodox, yes, but I don’t think it is beyond the pale.
To my mind, the difference between citing Wikipedia and citing a Web search is just a matter of the target’s format. When we search the Web, Google creates our “entry” on the fly with algorithms that prioritize popular and relevant websites. With Wikipedia, we have the dynamic of Web search somewhat inverted — creators with data they consider relevant to specific terms offer up that data to Wikipedia under a shared hosting umbrella in a common format (and with a commitment to collaboration). Due to this, Wikipedia entries generally look nicer. But other than that, Wikipedia and the World Wide Web are very nearly the same thing. Wikipedia’s openess, to both creation and revision, doesn’t guarantee much accuracy.
December 16, 2005 at 10:42 am
Posted in: Wiki
Print This Post
13 Comments
